Case Number: BC524641 Hearing Date: May 19, 2014 Dept: 92

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – CENTRAL DISTRICT

SORAYA AGHABALA, ET AL.,
Plaintiff(s),
vs.
HELEN GENDLER, ET AL.,
Defendant(s).

Case No.: BC524641

[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO STRIKE

Dept. 92
1:30 p.m. — #20
May 19, 2014

Defendant’s Motion to Strike is Granted Without Leave to Amend. Defendants are ordered to file a responsive pleading, with the subject allegations deemed stricken, within ten days.

1. Facts
Plaintiff, Soraya Aghabala alleges she was injured when Defendant, Helen Gendler, while attempting to back out of a parking space, accidentally drove forward and into the salon where Plaintiff was working, injuring her. Plaintiff alleges Defendant and her husband, Albert Gendler, were aware that Defendant should not be driving and that it was unsafe for her to drive.

2. Motion to Strike
Plaintiffs, based on the allegation that Defendants knew it was unsafe for Defendant, Helen to drive, seek imposition of punitive damages on Defendants. Specifically, in support of the request for punitive damages, Plaintiffs allege:
37. The Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant Helen Gendler was unfit to drive on October 23, 2011. In addition Defendant Helen Gendler, her husband Albert Gendler and her children all knew that Helen Gender’s driving posed a very severe threat
of bodily harm and even death to other people.
38. In addition, Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Helen Gendler’s doctors may have warned her and her family that she should not be driving because it poses a great danger to herself and other people. Be that as it may Helen Gendler drove on October 23, 2011 nearly killing the plaintiff and causing severe physical and mental injuries to her. Her actions are similar to the case of a few years ago wherein an elderly drove his car into a crowd of people at the farmers market near Third Street Promenade killing a few innocent people and injuring several more.

Defendants move to strike the prayer for punitive damages, contending Plaintiffs failed to adequately plead fraud, malice, or oppression. Plaintiffs, in opposition to the motion, liken Defendant’s decision to drive (and her husband’s decision to permit her to drive) to the decision on the part of a person who is intoxicated to drive.

As an initial note, this court does not de facto permit punitive damages allegations to stand in all cases involving intoxication. Per Dawes v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 82, this court requires something more than driving under the influence in order to support a prayer for punitive damages – some aggravating factor must also be alleged.

Plaintiffs herein are suggesting imposition of punitive damages, essentially, for driving while unfit to drive from a health perspective. There is no authority supporting imposition of punitive damages under those circumstances. Notably, being ill, elderly, and/or on medication does not rise to the level of “despicable” implicated by driving under the influence. Because this court does not, without more, allow a prayer for punitive damages in a case involving driving under the influence, this court also will not allow a prayer for punitive damages in a case involving driving while medically compromised.

The motion to strike is granted. Plaintiffs fail, in their opposition, to indicate what facts they would add to the complaint if leave to amend were granted. It does not appear that additional facts are available. Leave to amend is therefore denied.

Dated this 19th day of May, 2014

Hon. Elia Weinbach
Judge of the Superior Court